Lt.Col. Kilgore
C.O. of 1st of the 9th
Thats very idealistic, but that is exactly what the U.S. needs. Anyone who talks to the 'American people' and the world like that must have an incredibly high level of intelligence.
Should the United States attack Iraq?
- Thread starter Gandalf13
- Start date
Thats very idealistic, but that is exactly what the U.S. needs. Anyone who talks to the 'American people' and the world like that must have an incredibly high level of intelligence.
Greadius
:yeah:
Because Iraq actually agreed to it. And more people with more power don't want Iraq to have weapons.
Who is calling for the need of U.S. weapons inspectors... I mean, real people with important jobs, not 'peace activists'.
I voted no for the simple reason that I wouldn't go and fight myself, so who am I to send others to die?
And by the way attacking Iraq would only further inflame the muslim world and probably result in more terrorist attacks not less.
And by the way attacking Iraq would only further inflame the muslim world and probably result in more terrorist attacks not less.
Lucky
Game- and Quizmaster
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2001
- Messages
- 2,304
Attacking Iraq and/or even assassinating Saddam only adds more fuel to the smoldering fire that we call the Middle East and will most likely cause this region to destabilize even further. 
With Saddam gone in Iraq, there will be no more central power holding the forces togethe. Saddam executed almost everyone who could have taken control, to strengthen his grip on the country. Without him, the country will most likely experience the turmoil of civil war, as the Iraqi generals try to seize power, which will effect the surrounding neighbors as well.
Countries like Iran could see this as a chance to increase the influence and gain control of more oil reserves, while other countries like Saudi-Arabia will fear this exact thing and therefore take measures of this own.
With the Western World standing by and watching, and the UN being inconclusive as always, this could quickly lead into a real Middle East war. Further developments could involve Israel and/or Pakistan.
Thus a not to be underestimated chance exists, that the whole development might lead to a world wide conflict and global desaster.
Oh, yeah, I voted NO, of course!
With Saddam gone in Iraq, there will be no more central power holding the forces togethe. Saddam executed almost everyone who could have taken control, to strengthen his grip on the country. Without him, the country will most likely experience the turmoil of civil war, as the Iraqi generals try to seize power, which will effect the surrounding neighbors as well.
Countries like Iran could see this as a chance to increase the influence and gain control of more oil reserves, while other countries like Saudi-Arabia will fear this exact thing and therefore take measures of this own.
With the Western World standing by and watching, and the UN being inconclusive as always, this could quickly lead into a real Middle East war. Further developments could involve Israel and/or Pakistan.
Thus a not to be underestimated chance exists, that the whole development might lead to a world wide conflict and global desaster.
Oh, yeah, I voted NO, of course!
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2001
- Messages
- 30,080
Doubt it. The US wants to remove Sadam. If they can't justify it on the basis that he reneged on the inspectors deal, it will be because they "discover" that he is developing weapons of mass destruction, or that he is found to be supporting terrorism.
@RedWolf:
Been to Kuwait lately? I have. I have seen the areas that were attacked by Iraq and talked with some of the people of Kuwait.
Women 2nd class citizens? I am not sure about that...they were dressed almost as provacativly as the women in the US do, and by their choice.
Kuwait may be run by a monarchy but none of the people are goign to complain because they are set-up for a life of riches that is paid for with the oil they sell....so tell me how it harms to have such a government in this situation. I don't feel that all countries need to be democracies...North Korea says they are.
Of course the US has made mistakes, we will continue to but just because our motives weren't purely selfless doesn't make what we did less worthy.
Been to Kuwait lately? I have. I have seen the areas that were attacked by Iraq and talked with some of the people of Kuwait.
Women 2nd class citizens? I am not sure about that...they were dressed almost as provacativly as the women in the US do, and by their choice.
Kuwait may be run by a monarchy but none of the people are goign to complain because they are set-up for a life of riches that is paid for with the oil they sell....so tell me how it harms to have such a government in this situation. I don't feel that all countries need to be democracies...North Korea says they are.
Of course the US has made mistakes, we will continue to but just because our motives weren't purely selfless doesn't make what we did less worthy.
Mîtiu Ioan
Deity
I vote 'yes' - but with a BIG PROBLEM - what to do after this ??
Kossovo is still today a "black hole" of organized crime and so on ...
Regards
I propose that we, as in "that part of the globe that isn't in the middle east," stop buying oil from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, et al and let the entire region collapse into the cesspit despotism it was under the Ottoman Empire circa WW1. If we're going to have economic sanctions, let's do it correctly for once. Let them complain about "Western Imperialism" and "infidels" and what-not then.
Besides, it's funny to watch a tinpot would-be terrorist try to buy a barely functional AK-47 from an arms dealer when he hasn't any money. And, the cessation of videos on CNN of teenage Hamas waving guns in the air in total defiance of level-headed gun safety practices would more than make up for the increase in the cost of gasoline.
Besides, it's funny to watch a tinpot would-be terrorist try to buy a barely functional AK-47 from an arms dealer when he hasn't any money. And, the cessation of videos on CNN of teenage Hamas waving guns in the air in total defiance of level-headed gun safety practices would more than make up for the increase in the cost of gasoline.
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2001
- Messages
- 30,080
Unfortunately, not. There would simply not be enough gasoline on the market to satisfy the demand - far too much of the gasoline comes from the middle east. This course of action is not viable, as, like Kyoto, it would harm the economy too much.
knowltok2
Deity
Much like when Hilter marched into the Rheinland in 1936, Saddam's refusal to allow in weapons inspectors does grant a legitimate cause for war. I wonder if at the time people pointed to Alsase-Lorrain <sp> and commented on the French not demilitarizing it?
As for what would replace Saddam, don't automatically assume that the country would collapse into civil war. A success story like West Germany or Japan may not spring from the ashes of a defeated Iraq, but that doesn't mean that it would automatically be a worst case scenario.
I simply don't believe that Saddam is such a force for stability that if removed and replaced by a government given proper support that the whole region would collapse into war. Over what? I don't think Mideast countries are going to spontaneously attack US forces in Iraq for the hell of it. Even if the US has left and there is a fragile government in Bagdad, who is going to risk trying to carve off a chunk? Iran? I don't think so. Syria? Please. The rest of the nations in the region don't even bear considering as invasion threats.
As for the "more terrorist attacks" thing: I don't think the extremists could be any more likely to blow something up than they are right now. If Saddam was removed and replaced with a government that fed it people instead of equiping its army, the desperation in the region might actually go down. Other Sultans, Kings, Sheiks, Mullahs, and Dictators for Life in the region might get the message that supporting terrorism isn't a good idea.
I can't help but notice that the people who blow things up tend to come from the nations in the Middle East that aren't exactly democratic.
As for what would replace Saddam, don't automatically assume that the country would collapse into civil war. A success story like West Germany or Japan may not spring from the ashes of a defeated Iraq, but that doesn't mean that it would automatically be a worst case scenario.
I simply don't believe that Saddam is such a force for stability that if removed and replaced by a government given proper support that the whole region would collapse into war. Over what? I don't think Mideast countries are going to spontaneously attack US forces in Iraq for the hell of it. Even if the US has left and there is a fragile government in Bagdad, who is going to risk trying to carve off a chunk? Iran? I don't think so. Syria? Please. The rest of the nations in the region don't even bear considering as invasion threats.
As for the "more terrorist attacks" thing: I don't think the extremists could be any more likely to blow something up than they are right now. If Saddam was removed and replaced with a government that fed it people instead of equiping its army, the desperation in the region might actually go down. Other Sultans, Kings, Sheiks, Mullahs, and Dictators for Life in the region might get the message that supporting terrorism isn't a good idea.
I can't help but notice that the people who blow things up tend to come from the nations in the Middle East that aren't exactly democratic.
G-Man
A One Man's War
YES!!!
The US has the right to do so because Saddam is it's enemy - he attacked it's allies, supported anti American terrorists and stated dozens of times that he's anti American. A country has the right to prevent it's enemies from risking it's citizens, and I don't think there's any reason to wait untill Saddam will make his version of sep11th before stoping him.
I don't think weapon inspectors will help. Saddam doesn't have any problem hiding his stuff from them.
"Attacking Iraq and/or even assassinating Saddam only adds more fuel to the smoldering fire that we call the Middle East and will most likely cause this region to destabilize even further. "
Unlike what will happen if Saddam will stay in power and get a nuke (aprox 2 - 5 years from today). What will the US do if he'll take over Kuwait again and state that an American attack will make him launch a nuclear SCUD on Saudi or Israel? What if he'll force Iran with his nuke to give him longer rane missiles and will threaten europe as well?
BTW - Iran is a democratic looking dictatorship. Lebanon has a democratic goverment that doesn't control the country, or even Beirut.
The US has the right to do so because Saddam is it's enemy - he attacked it's allies, supported anti American terrorists and stated dozens of times that he's anti American. A country has the right to prevent it's enemies from risking it's citizens, and I don't think there's any reason to wait untill Saddam will make his version of sep11th before stoping him.
I don't think weapon inspectors will help. Saddam doesn't have any problem hiding his stuff from them.
"Attacking Iraq and/or even assassinating Saddam only adds more fuel to the smoldering fire that we call the Middle East and will most likely cause this region to destabilize even further. "
Unlike what will happen if Saddam will stay in power and get a nuke (aprox 2 - 5 years from today). What will the US do if he'll take over Kuwait again and state that an American attack will make him launch a nuclear SCUD on Saudi or Israel? What if he'll force Iran with his nuke to give him longer rane missiles and will threaten europe as well?
BTW - Iran is a democratic looking dictatorship. Lebanon has a democratic goverment that doesn't control the country, or even Beirut.
Simon Darkshade
Mysterious City of Gold
In a word, yes. Definitely.
Sanaz
Gorilla Joe
I don't see what an attack on Iraq will do, other than to fuel more turmoil and terrorist attacks from the repressed and hopeless. The emotions in the area run on propoganda, why give more reason for unification? The decisions to leave Saddam in power were made for US selfish reasons, and the consequences must have been known. I wouldn't expect another attack to have different results, and George Jr. sure doesn't have the smarts or support that his daddy did. And what about after the attacks? I could see this being the single biggest disaster of our lifetimes... I don't suggest that nothing be done, but an outright attack is certainly not the answer. Not to mention the number of innocent families who would be destroyed.
Despite throwing around simplistic phrases like "enemy" and "totalitarian" to dehumanize folks in the middle east, they really are people who go to school and go to work, and try to raise their families the best they can. I'm amazed at the number of supposedly educated Americans who fall into the sad trap of "us against the world".
Despite throwing around simplistic phrases like "enemy" and "totalitarian" to dehumanize folks in the middle east, they really are people who go to school and go to work, and try to raise their families the best they can. I'm amazed at the number of supposedly educated Americans who fall into the sad trap of "us against the world".
knowltok2
Deity
Most of the Americans on this board do not see the Iraqi people as the enemy. Nor do most of those that I know in my daily life. You are absolutely right about the people who are trying to live their lives the best they can. Part of the problem is that they are being kept from doing this by the totalitarian regime of which you speak. You used the words repressed and hopeless. Perhaps what these people need is relief from their repression and a ray of hope. That isn't going to come from Saddam.
Now I don't believe that it is the US's duty to 'free' the people of the world, but in this case our interests coincide and are best served by trying to eliminate the repression and hopelessness. Saddam Hussein is an 'enemy' of the US in the same way that Osama Bin Ladin is. He has a track record of violence against his neighbors and his own people. He has voiced support for attacks against America and has provided money to support suicide bombings in Israel. The word enemy may be simplistic to you, but I do believe that it fits.
I think the US should use force to remove Saddam Hussein from power. He, not the Iraqi people, is an enemy of the US, and does present a clear and present danger. Iraq is also a country that suffers from criminal mismanagement and mistreatment of its people. A stable government in Iraq founded on democratic principles is actually a prime ingredient in a recipe for ending the repression and hopelessness of the region. Actions speak louder than words, and a successful Iraq under a democratic leadership will speak louder than Al Jazera, or the state run media of the Mubaraks, Sauds, and Assads of the region.
Yes Saddam is evil and dangerous and should let the weopons inspectors in, but just because Bush probably isn't as evil as he appears doesn't mean he shouldn't do likewise.
Anyway suppose the US do attack and win and dispose of Saddam.
Firstly the American people won't accept what happened last time - leaving Saddam in power, they bought it at the end of the Gulf, but they won't let this Bush get away with it.
Secondly if the US do overthrow Saddam; who are they going to replace him with? The usual US approach to such matters is to put in place a government who will bend over backwards on command (Afganistan). But with the amount of propaganda flying around Iraq, I'm not sure the US'll find a government who they'll deem to be "suitable". If they do, said government probably won't have the support of a majority of the population in the democratic way that we hold in high regard here in the west. It won't just be Saddam propaganda that will result in this. I'm willing to bet that the Iraqis won't be to impressed with the Yanks after they have all their major towns/cities bombed to the ground as a result of the usual "minimal casualties possible" approach the US take.
Yes their will be a lot of support for a democratic government in Iraq, but Iraqis aren't in love with the US, and would look for a like minded government. (This doesn't necesarily mean a terrorist supporting government; France isn't pro US, and doesn't support terrorism).Remember that Iraqis see the US as the terrorists (propaganda here). Saddam claims 2 million children have died as a result of US activity since the end of the Gulf War, through sanctions and bombing. Of course (this number is exagerated obviously) Saddam himself is responsible for a large number of these deaths through providing for his army, rather then the people. But remember the US/Britain have gone on regular missions into Iraq to destroy legitimate targets (air bases / sam sites whatever). And I'm sure we all remember NATO's (mainly American planes/pilots etc.) pin point accuracy during Kosovo. Not to mention Afganistan - where more Afgan CIVILIANS (SEPERATE TO THE TERRORISTS of Taliban, Al - Qaeda) died then civilians in 911.
Anyway suppose the US do attack and win and dispose of Saddam.
Firstly the American people won't accept what happened last time - leaving Saddam in power, they bought it at the end of the Gulf, but they won't let this Bush get away with it.
Secondly if the US do overthrow Saddam; who are they going to replace him with? The usual US approach to such matters is to put in place a government who will bend over backwards on command (Afganistan). But with the amount of propaganda flying around Iraq, I'm not sure the US'll find a government who they'll deem to be "suitable". If they do, said government probably won't have the support of a majority of the population in the democratic way that we hold in high regard here in the west. It won't just be Saddam propaganda that will result in this. I'm willing to bet that the Iraqis won't be to impressed with the Yanks after they have all their major towns/cities bombed to the ground as a result of the usual "minimal casualties possible" approach the US take.
Yes their will be a lot of support for a democratic government in Iraq, but Iraqis aren't in love with the US, and would look for a like minded government. (This doesn't necesarily mean a terrorist supporting government; France isn't pro US, and doesn't support terrorism).Remember that Iraqis see the US as the terrorists (propaganda here). Saddam claims 2 million children have died as a result of US activity since the end of the Gulf War, through sanctions and bombing. Of course (this number is exagerated obviously) Saddam himself is responsible for a large number of these deaths through providing for his army, rather then the people. But remember the US/Britain have gone on regular missions into Iraq to destroy legitimate targets (air bases / sam sites whatever). And I'm sure we all remember NATO's (mainly American planes/pilots etc.) pin point accuracy during Kosovo. Not to mention Afganistan - where more Afgan CIVILIANS (SEPERATE TO THE TERRORISTS of Taliban, Al - Qaeda) died then civilians in 911.
I agree with you here 110%, but what often annoys me is the claim by US politicians (and some civilians who will follow the politicians like sheep - there are people like this in every country, I'm not attacking US people in general here) that it is the US's duty to 'free' the people of the world.
This point could be made in the Anti US/Anti European debate.
knowltok2
Deity
Originally posted by Baleog
Yes Saddam is evil and dangerous and should let the weopons inspectors in, but just because Bush probably isn't as evil as he appears doesn't mean he shouldn't do likewise.
Anyway suppose the US do attack and win and dispose of Saddam.
Firstly the American people won't accept what happened last time - leaving Saddam in power, they bought it at the end of the Gulf, but they won't let this Bush get away with it.
Of course.
Secondly if the US do overthrow Saddam; who are they going to replace him with? The usual US approach to such matters is to put in place a government who will bend over backwards on command (Afganistan). But with the amount of propaganda flying around Iraq, I'm not sure the US'll find a government who they'll deem to be "suitable". If they do, said government probably won't have the support of a majority of the population in the democratic way that we hold in high regard here in the west. It won't just be Saddam propaganda that will result in this. I'm willing to bet that the Iraqis won't be to impressed with the Yanks after they have all their major towns/cities bombed to the ground as a result of the usual "minimal casualties possible" approach the US take.
Why are all the major cities going to be bombed to the ground? Why does everyone ascribe to the Iraqis some quality that will make them fight tooth and nail for every city and burg? No disrespect to them or anything, but it won't be necessary to bomb every town and city 'to the ground'. I think most people overestimate the destruction in civilian areas that will be necessary to overthrow the Iraqi government.
Yes their will be a lot of support for a democratic government in Iraq, but Iraqis aren't in love with the US, and would look for a like minded government. (This doesn't necesarily mean a terrorist supporting government; France isn't pro US, and doesn't support terrorism).
If Iraq winds up with a government like France's I will consider the operation a tremendous success.
Remember that Iraqis see the US as the terrorists (propaganda here). Saddam claims 2 million children have died as a result of US activity since the end of the Gulf War, through sanctions and bombing. Of course (this number is exagerated obviously) Saddam himself is responsible for a large number of these deaths through providing for his army, rather then the people. But remember the US/Britain have gone on regular missions into Iraq to destroy legitimate targets (air bases / sam sites whatever). And I'm sure we all remember NATO's (mainly American planes/pilots etc.) pin point accuracy during Kosovo. Not to mention Afganistan - where more Afgan CIVILIANS (SEPERATE TO THE TERRORISTS of Taliban, Al - Qaeda) died then civilians in 911.
The continued sanctions and bombing isn't working and is part of a flawed policy left over from when Iraq first started dishonoring its agreements after the Gulf War. I believe the goal is still valid, and since occasional bombing and sanctions haven't worked, and Saddam is still in violation, force is justified and recommended.
Greadius
:yeah:
Its a case by case basis, not the 'usual.' The Afghan administration is called the INTERIM because there isn't any illusion that it is permenant; the permenant administration will be shaped by an Afghan ruling council in the coming weeks. The U.S. will be influential, as well as about a dozen other powers, but the decisions ultimately lie with them.
I'd think the goal in a post Saddam-Iraq would be, in my perspective, to carve up the country into temporary interim governments: Kurds in the North, non-Baath Sunni's in the center, and Shi'ite leaders in the south/east.
Sanctions don't kill people, dictators do.
There is a 20 year old warzone with a civil war, impartant to air bombings by the United States, yet all casualties are blamed on the latecomming party with the smallest role.
There are no reliable casualty figures for the U.S. led bombing campaigns. The only sources that have provided numbers have a vested interest in tarnishing the reputation of the United States.
I consider it a long term, big picture goal of democratic nations to spread the virtues and benefits of that government over the entire globe. However, the day to day toppling of governments isn't necessarily the way to go to achieve that goal.
knowltok2
Deity
We are of like mind on this point, but I suspect that the politicians make those claims to satisfy the naive both at home and abroad. These are the people who point to the Gulf War and say it is about oil as if preventing a violent dictator from cornering the world's supply of oil wasn't good enough. If we can help some people, great, but first and foremost, nations look out for the own interest, and there isn't a one that doesn't.
(A note about the naive people I mentioned above. They are naive in my mind not because they identify the cause of US involvement, but becuase they demand statements to the contrary. They aren't as bad as those that buy the humanitarian reasons hook, line, and sinker, though.)
Similar threads
